August 9, 2007 by Stacy McDonald
Egalitarian Error and Various Other Updates
Jennie and I are still working on our book, Passionate Housewives Desperate for God, adding, polishing, deleting, researching, and polishing some more. The closer we get to finishing, the more excited we become. It’s taken a lot longer than either of us expected, but then that is life in the mommy-lane, writing in the midst of motherhood, homeschooling, homekeeping, and ministry.
The picture to the left is the view I have from the screened in porch off my bedroom. When I get a chance, it’s my favorite spot in the house to write (and when it’s not too hot outside). If I’m able to squeeze a few moments of writing into daylight hours, I can write amidst the noises of my children playing, the birds singing, and the ducks quacking. If I wind up waiting until everyone is asleep, I won’t get the view, but I’ll hear the bullfrogs croaking (now that is something to hear!), the cicadas jazzing up the night, and the splash of an occasional “something” in the pond. My husband likes to write his sermons on the same porch, so I have excellent company as our computers light up the night sky and the clicking of the keyboards add to the symphony around us.
I was reading Carmon’s blog at Buried Treasure Books and wanted to ask all of my readers to make sure and read her latest post – especially if you’ve been keeping up with the whole evangelical feminism problem in the church. Carmon does a good job of saying what I want to say, before I say it. Her most recent post is definitely one you shouldn’t miss.
There are some “strange winds of doctrine” flying around these days that are bewildering some and leading others astray. One book that may be helping to confuse a few (hopefully not many) is the book, Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. You would think the name alone would turn away those faithful to the Scriptures.
Stackhouse claims to be revealing the “truth” of human equality, long-hidden in God’s Word. His version of the roles of men and women is an evolving one. Stackhouse dismisses Scriptures that seem to defy his contentions (Acts 15; Eph.6:5-9; Eph. 6:1-4; 1 Cor. 11:1 and more) by blaming the patriarchal society that Jesus would allegedly soon do away with. Mr. Stackhouse seems to believe that Paul had to work within a flawed male-dominated society, so many times when the apostle’s words seemed to limit the roles of women, he simply meant “for right now.” Mr. Stackhouse dismisses Paul ‘s words by claiming that his words were colored by his patriarchal upbringing. S.M. Hutchens, of Touchstone Magazine writes:
“One of the reasons for this surprising shift in the burden of proof for novel doctrines must be the loss of poor, confused St. Paul as a genuinely apostolic authority. As far as Stackhouse is concerned, where the apostle is right he is right, and where he is wrong he is wrong. He thinks, for example, that some of 1 Corinthians 11 ‘seems pretty typical of a first-century rabbi who is reading Genesis 1 and 2 through patriarchal lenses—lenses not all of us share.’”
So where does it end? If one part of the Bible can be wrong, what’s next? If Paul was wrong about the roles of men and women because he was a chauvinist, what else was he wrong about? Is the Bible inspired or is it not?
To take Stackhouse seriously, one must be able to somehow swallow his words about the Apostles and the early church fathers without choking. On page 81 Stackhouse says:
“We properly revere the early church fathers for bequeathing us much classic wisdom. But their general misogyny is a scandal: Most of them, as far as we know, really did see women as not only spiritually and intellectually inferior to men, but also positively dangerous to men’s godliness.”
Stackhouse seems to believe that one must be an intellectual to understand these long-concealed mysteries of Scripture. Hutchens says it well when he contemplates Stackhouse’s logic:
“Numerous times Stackhouse assures the reader that his patriarchalist opponents are not to be despised. They are sincere people who have correctly identified the Scriptures as teaching what they believe. But he makes it abundantly clear that they are also ignorant, backwards, resistant to the best modern scholarship, and, so far as they persist in believing that patriarchalism is true, they must also be willing participants in a great lie and a profound evil to which God has accommodated Godself in his attempt to save them. They are not evil themselves, but they, like the overwhelming majority of Christians in all times and places, are ignorant folk who need to be taught what the Bible really says by masters who have finally understood its deepest message in regard to matters of gender.”
I admit, I don’t know the secret handshake needed to understand these “enlightened” ideas (Praise God!). I’m just a homeschooling mom trying to live my life to the glory of God. I believe Finally Feminist is a heretical book and if it’s teachings are embraced it is a danger to women and their families – and to the Church. Heresy always seems to begin with “Hath God truly said?” So, I encourage all my readers to visit the Bayly Brothers to finish this conversation. It’s time for the men to step in. Thank you, Pastor Bayly…
Similar Posts:
19 Responses to “Egalitarian Error and Various Other Updates”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
This situational-ethics, evolutionary thinking in supposed Christian intellectuals is mind-boggling! How can they claim to have enlightened wisdom, when, according to their own theory, it will all be outdated and disproved in a couple of decades? “Truth” built on shifting sands can never be truth.
Thank God for His unchanging Word! And thank you, Mrs. McDonald, for adding wise insights to Carmon’s great post. God bless you.
From a Titus 2 grandmother of many. . .
Praise the Lord something we can agree on. :)
I read this book after I read Susan Wise Bauer’s review a while back. Thankfully, the book was available at our local library and I didn’t waste money buying it. I thought about just not returning it so it would be taken out of circulation, but I didn’t think that would be very honest!
Hi Mrs. McDonald,
Let me know if you need an inexpensive cover designer for your book.
–Joe
Thanks Bonnie! And happy anniversary! 41 years? Wow! Praise God! I went to your blog and saw your cute wedding pictures! It looks like you have a beautiful family – it is a blessing to see Christ being lived out in future generations!
Hi Spunky,
Praise God! Though I’m not all that surprised – I think we probably agree on quite a few things. ;-)
I can relate to the desire to see certain books out of circulation. One time I tucked a warning note to the next reader in a library book. LOL!
Just a quick word. Brother Hutchens’s review of my book is an irresponsible misrepresentation of what I clearly say, as is much of the summary on this blog. I do NOT think I am smarter or more godly than the rest of the Church, nor of Christ’s apostles. I DO think God’s Word is best understood in the way I carefully set it out.
Friends, we simply must not bear false witness against each other. You certainly may disagree with my conclusions about this important and complicated issue. But please do not misrepresent my arguments or misconstrue my motives. I am trying to understand and apply the Bible as God’s Holy Word. That’s all.
Mine is a small book and doesn’t take long to read. So please don’t take the word of hostile reviewers for it. Borrow it, if you don’t want to buy it. Read a chapter or two if you don’t want to read the whole thing. Or ignore it. (We’re all busy!) But DON’T write about it unless you’ve actually read it and tried to understand it. Fair enough?
Thanks!
Your brother in Christ,
John Stackhouse
Dear Mr. Stackhouse,
Thank you for writing. As an author who has just recently discovered a blog where my own book was being negatively discussed (and horribly misrepresented) I can certainly sympathize with your frustration. In my case, my book was not even quoted, only sweeping false generalizations were made.
However, I do own your book. I will say it seems very well written and you have a gentle and engaging writing style. I admit I did not read it from cover to cover because as a Christian I was offended (and more than a little shocked) by some of your claims.
If you will tell me where I have actually misrepresented you in my summary, I will make sure it is corrected. Also, if I have misunderstood something you’ve said, due to my not having thoroughly read all of your material, I will be more than happy to revise my post.
Could you answer a few questions for clarification?
1. Do you believe that God did not intend for there to be any difference between men and women(aside from biological function) for all time, but instead only for a temporary period in history?
2. Do you believe the Apostle Paul said things in error (when he taught male headship) based on his patriarchal upbringing and then contradicted himself (by what you call his “doubleness” or doubletalk) because the Holy Spirit wanted him to reveal to us egalitarianism?
3. Do you believe that Jesus “did away” with the roles of men and women?
4. Do you believe that Jesus taught egalitarianism?
5. Do you believe that God can be described as feminine?
6. Do you believe that Adam was created genderless?
7. Do you believe that what you are teaching in your book is something that has been hidden (by God’s sovereignty) since Creation, and is only now (since egalitarianism is becoming more prevalent) something we are able to hear?
In regards to question number one above, I am referring to role distinctions. I’m sure we all agree there is no difference in worth or value between men and women.
Mr. Stackhouse
I would like to compliment you on your humility and willingness to dialogue on this important subject. It isn’t easy to come into a critical situation and show such willingness to dialogue.
I especially appreciated the sentence where you stated, ” You certainly may disagree with my conclusions about this important and complicated issue. But please do not misrepresent my arguments or misconstrue my motives. I am trying to understand and apply the Bible as God’s Holy Word. That’s all.”
That’s all any of us are attempting to do. By your comment, you appear genuinely willing to look at the issue and subject your thoughts to critical review and analysis. You have my utmost respect for your courage and willingness to dialogue even in an environment where the majority may disagree with your point of view.
Your humiltiy has blessed me tremendously!
Thank-you for this courteous response. I shall give you the best reply I can, but I trust you will allow for two factors: I am sick with the ‘flu and we are currently readying Son Number Two to begin college in Chicago, and we leave on Tuesday to drive him there. He’s our first to leave home, so we’re both more busy than usual and a little more emotionally distracted than usual! I’m sure every parent reading this will understand.
On, then, to the good questions Mrs. McDonald raises:
1. Do you believe that God did not intend for there to be any difference between men and women(aside from biological function) for all time, but instead only for a temporary period in history?
In my book I do say that I think there must be some essential differences between men and women beyond biology. If we Christians don’t say that, and opt instead for some supposed “unisex” idea (differentiated only by biology), then how can we oppose homosexual marriage? Instead, I believe that God divides the “adam” into male and female in Genesis 2 and makes clear that they are NOT the same, but rather are complementary.
What I do not see in Scripture, however, is the idea that among the divinely-given, fundamental, and universal differences between men and women is patriarchy, the man always leading in home, church, society, etc. I suggest instead that patriarchy is a result of the Fall and that God works within it for a time and instructs his people to do so–until such time (as in our own day) when such accommodation to patriarchy is no longer advantageous to his purposes.
2. Do you believe the Apostle Paul said things in error (when he taught male headship) based on his patriarchal upbringing and then contradicted himself (by what you call his “doubleness” or doubletalk) because the Holy Spirit wanted him to reveal to us egalitarianism?
I’m sure you mean to refer to the Apostle Paul when he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Holy Scripture. I’m sure neither of us think Paul was infallible all the time–such as when he predicted the weather for tomorrow!
This is not a trivial point. The Holy Spirit inspires the authors of Scripture such that they write what he wants them to write. But he doesn’t make what they write perfect: they don’t all use correct Greek grammar, for example. And that’s fine: that’s what you’d expect fishermen such as Peter and John to do!
More significantly, God inspires his writers, he doesn’t dictate to them, so they remain people of their day. So he uses not only their actual vocabulary (Peter doesn’t suddenly sound like a first-century Ph.D.!) but their mental vocabulary as well.
Thus Paul writes out of what he knows, and writes what the Holy Spirit wants him to write. Thus when I’m not sure that Paul is speaking with complete consistency and clarity (although I think he never actually contradicts himself), that is what we might expect from the Holy Spirit blowing through a mere human vessel.
So I think Paul did teach patriarchy and I think he was inspired to do so–and that’s what I say in my book. But I am trying to read ALL of what Paul wrote, and he wrote some things that seem to be at least in tension with his patriarchal instructions, such as his recognition of women as apostles, deacons, leaders, and such like, and his expectation that women would pray and prophesy in church. My patriarchalist friends worry that I’m not fully Biblical, but I respond by asking them to take seriously ALL the Biblical data, not just the verses they think are so clear.
Far from thinking Paul is wrong, then, I think he is RIGHT: but to make sense of ALL he wrote takes some care, and that’s what I try to do.
3. Do you believe that Jesus “did away” with the roles of men and women?
No, I don’t, and I caution my egalitarian friends not to make more of Jesus’ treatment of women than they should. Jesus, after all, called twelve MEN to be his inner circle, and three MEN to be his innermost circle. Yet Jesus had more than one circle (!), as seen in his relationships with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, with Mary Magdalene, and with his mother. Again, we have to try to make sense of ALL that Jesus said and did.
4. Do you believe that Jesus taught egalitarianism?
Again, no, I don’t think he did. I think instead that egalitarianism is something the church should teach only when the social conditions for such teaching are right–when the gospel can be advanced in them. To be sure, I think that egalitarianism is entirely in accordance with Jesus’ teaching, however–just as Jesus’ apparent refusal to preach against slavery is nonetheless in accordance with our seeing the Bible as best interpreted as being against slavery.
5. Do you believe that God can be described as feminine?
The Bible itself describes God as feminine, by which I mean having traits or performing actions that we typically ascribe to women. But God is not female, nor is he male. And, as I take pains to say in one of my book’s appendices, we must neither push away the predominantly masculine way in which God reveals himself in Scripture nor ignore the rare, but interesting, times in which he reveals himself in a feminine way, such as a mother bird tending her chicks.
6. Do you believe that Adam was created genderless?
I rather think Adam was created merely “human” until the woman is created out of him in Genesis 2. The word “adam” can be read that way, my friends who are Hebrew experts tell me. But I don’t have strong feelings about this because I lack the expertise to justify them!
7. Do you believe that what you are teaching in your book is something that has been hidden (by God’s sovereignty) since Creation, and is only now (since egalitarianism is becoming more prevalent) something we are able to hear?
That’s pretty close, actually, to what I’m saying. Thank-you for caring enough to try to say it so concisely! For me to say such an admittedly odd thing–it doesn’t have to be scandalous, though, because I’m not insulting previous generations of godly people by saying so, let’s be clear!–would take a good argument, wouldn’t it! Why in the world would God accommodate himself and his people to patriarchy instead of just teaching against it from the beginning? Well, that’s what I do try to carefully argue in my book, and I can’t do it justice here. So I’ll have to leave it at that.
Friends, one last thing. I know there are wicked feminists out there: some of them hate men, and some of them seem to hate women! We all know there are also wicked patriarchalists out there, mostly nasty men, but also including some women who seem to enjoy hating other women, or feeling superior to them, or whatever.
Yet I know godly and intelligent Christian feminists, and godly and intelligent Christian patriarchalists–people who agree that men and women are equally valued and loved by God, that men and women should treat each other lovingly and respectfully, and that men and women are not the same, but wonderfully, if also mysteriously, different. My little book is offered to those who find it hard to believe that some human beings should automatically be given leadership in home, church, and society because of their sex and who want also to be faithful to Scripture. I don’t expect to persuade many die-hard patriarchalists–and I’m sure I haven’t! But I am trying to show, however modestly one can in a little book, that “Christian feminist” is not a contradiction in terms!
Many thanks for this respectful interaction. After all, as I trust we agree, however important gender issues are, our unity in the bond of Christ’s peace is far more important. Jesus’ New Commandment, after all, was not, “Make sure you sort out gender questions!” but “Love each other as I have loved you.”
For those ladies who might be reading this discussion:
Stacy does make it clear in her sidebar that this is a blog intended for encouraging Christian women, and she is obviously patriarchal in her understanding of the Bible. Feminism in the church is an issue about which we are both very concerned, and the book _Finally Feminist_, by its title alone, obviously promotes feminism (and yes, we do understand feminism is manifested in varying degrees in society). Professor Stackhouse uses the Bible to support his position in a way that does offend those who are patriarchal (or complementarian), undermining Scriptures that we consider orthodox with a novel interpretation of the creation of man and by positing a kind of evolutionary understanding of Scripture, even though the canon is closed (and yes, I do understand that interpretations differ and issues are hammered out, but I do not believe God progressively reveals new meanings to the closed canon of Scripture).
I originally wrote about this on my blog as a concern for the many homeschooling mothers who are doing the difficult job of teaching their children and being keepers at home, and who are avid followers of Mrs. Bauer’s teaching. As a woman who gladly embraces “patriarchy,” encouraging other women is one of my primary reasons for writing on my blog, just as it is for Stacy here. The only reason I am addressing what was written here is for the sake of those who might think that a “nice” response gives credence to bad ideas. Saying the Bible is “inspired” is not the same as believing it is inerrant. We don’t really care what Paul thought about the weather unless it relates to how he suffered for Christ, but we do care about what he plainly says in God’s holy, inerrant Word. If there is no clear headship portrayed in marriage, then the picture of the union of Christ with His Bride, the Church, is marred.
To say that unity is more important than what we believe about gender questions is a false dichotomy. We are to speak the truth in love, not niceness, and love is based on truth (not making sure people believe you are right, and I’m speaking in our direction here). If Stacy and I believe that what someone writes about gender is a danger to families and churches (especially if it is becoming popular in our circles), out of love and concern for other women who read what we write, we will sometimes say so, for the benefit of those women.
Stacy and I each have 10 children, we homeschool them, we are helpmeets to godly husbands, and we constantly have to battle stereotypes and misconceptions ourselves about who we are and what we believe, in a society that at the least thinks we are oddballs and at the worst would like to see us committed to a mental institution. You should see our hate mail, and some of it is from “Christians.” We have no desire to personally attack anyone, but we do believe what _Finally Feminist_ teaches is harming Christian women, not helping them. It says that patriarchy “was and is” fundamentally evil, something that does not sound so nice.
I’m done with this discussion as I don’t think it’s appropriate or productive to have an argument over this, but I wanted to say this for any women who might be reading, as an reminder to “test the spirits” and be Bereans about what you read and hear, even when it’s what Stacy and I write!
Not wanting to clog up the works here, I’ve posted on this exchange with Mr. Stackhouse over at Baylyblog. Thank you, Mrs. McDonald and Prof. Hutchens, for your faithful witness. It strengthens us all.
http://www.baylyblog.com/
Carmon and Stacy,
Thank you for revealing this nasty bit of heresy to me both in person and on your respective blogs.
God bless,
Heather Davis
Hi Stacy,
I saw your comment elsewhere about Stackhouse’s view of homosexuality – I had missed the implications.
I’ve been wondering if Prof Stackhouse ever contact you privately to enumerate the places where you “misrepresented” him? He seems to have answered the list of questions but it doesn’t look like he’s actually substantiated the charge of irresponsible misrepresentation.
Kamilla
You’ll notice he did the same thing over at MereComments and Baylyblog. Seems to be a nsty habit.
Kamilla
Proffesor Stackhouse wrote me privately and pointed out to me that he never said anyone was “too stupid” or patriarchal to understand his ideas. So I have deleted that section from my blog. Though it is my belief that his book does imply this, I have deleted it based upon his claim.
An individual (as well as my husband) pointed out to me that one of my comments on this thread was less than gracious.
I hope I am always willing to consider when my own sarcastic nature has risen up and gotten the best of me. I really do try to crucify that part of my flesh on a daily basis and, with God’s help, I’m making some headway (you should have seen me in high school!)
Sometimes I can see it on my own and can repent, other times I’m blinded by my own sinful pride and someone else has to point it out. Either way, if you see a sentence missing from these comments, you’ll know why.
As for Prof. Stackhouse and I, we parted company (via email) in peace. I think he’s wrong and he thinks I’m wrong. I pray that God reveals His Truth to Prof. Stackhouse for his own sake and for the sake of those he’s leading astray. It could be that the good professor is praying for me too – I hope so; I could use it.
Grace and Peace
I want to register my appreciation for Mrs. McDonald’s initiative–both on this blog and in private e-mail correspondence–to sort things out with me. She has done so graciously, and we have reaffirmed our mutual esteem in Christ.
There is nothing wrong with straightforward disagreement over things that matter. Indeed, as we try to honour God and his Word, and edify each other in Christian fellowship, we sometimes will do so with passion and vigour. Of course we should!
God keep us all, however, from doing so in such a way that we indulge in the “anger of man” that “does not achieve the righteousness of God.”
I myself have been guilty of such intemperance and un-charity toward others–far worse than anything Sister Stacy said to or about me–and I am sorry for it.
Let us all, then, bear with each other, recognizing and forgiving each other’s frailty and fallenness, and keep trying to provoke each other (one of my favourite Biblical phrases!) to love and good deeds!
For anyone interested: If you have any questions or comments regarding this thread, you may write me privately. Aside from that, this thread is closed.